Opinion
Column

Protection of democracy warrants hacking probe

New York magazine reports "Hillary Clinton is being urged by prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump."

The report stated the group "believes they've found persuasive evidence results in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked." In other words, what Donald Trump repeatedly stated during run-up to Nov. 8: "This election is rigged."

There is, according to the story, data to show a discrepancy in some counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared with optical scanners and paper ballots.

There are two parts to investigating this allegation.

First, is there data to suggest something is amiss? Without seeing the data, it is impossible to pass judgment. However, J. Alex Halderman, a respected professor of computer science and the director of the University of Michigan's Center for Computer Security and Society is weighing in on the matter.

Here is a simple way of thinking about the claim being made. Pretend you have two coins and you flip each of them 100 times. Assuming the coins have no imperfections, you would expect each to get around 50 heads and 50 tails.

The first coin yields the expected result. But the second results in 55 heads and 45 tails. This is possible, but mathematically the chances are small -- roughly one in 20. What if now you flip the second coin 1,000 times and get 550 heads? This is the same percentage of heads, but now the chances of this occurring drop to around one in 6,000. With virtual certainty something is amiss.

Loosely speaking, the above analogy describes what is being alleged.

Data from one set of counties -- those that did not use the voting machines -- matches expectations. Data from counties using electronic voting machines does not. We have not yet seen data from scientists to support their claims, but if the New York magazine report is accurate, there is an anomaly that must be investigated.

If something untoward happened, can it be proven?

The electronic voting machines are run by computer software. They could have been programmed to ignore some votes. That should be easy to prove: just examine the software. That won't necessarily reveal anything, as clever hackers often leave no trace of what they have done. The program code would be simple: "Wait until Nov. 8, 2016. On that date ignore every 10th vote for the Democrats. At 6 a.m. on Nov. 9, 2016, erase this code."

There is another way to find proof if the counties have an independent record of voting. What if it was discovered these counties averaged 1,000 people casting votes (as recorded at the polling station) but the machine only registered 900 actual votes? This would be compelling proof results are flawed. But even this would not tell us who was responsible or who was the legitimate winner of the election.

Evidence for voting irregularities must be made public and assessed. If there is concern, an investigation must be launched. There may be no physical evidence to support the contention the voting machines were compromised. What do you do, however, if you can prove the voting pattern was so unusual the result had only a one-in-1,000 chance of occurring? Does that constitute reasonable doubt? Does that cast doubt on results of the U.S. election?

Every American -- Republicans and Democrats -- must insist on a thorough bipartisan investigation. The United States must allow all vote counting to be audited.

As a Canadian, it is important to me that the American election result is above reproach. Anything less than that is an affront to democracy. Canada and the world are watching.

Jonathan Schaeffer is a professor of computing science and dean of the University of Alberta's faculty of science.